KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / ADALYA / 2020 / Sayı: 23

Anatolian Pot Marks in the 3rd Millennium BC: Signage, Early State Formation, and Organization of Production

Abdullah HACAR
K. Aslıhan YENER
Dergi
ADALYA
Sayfa
25–58
Yayın Tarihi
2020-11-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Taking into account the general characteristics of the Anatolian EBA and the production techniques of Anatolian Metallic Ware, we discuss whether the pot marks reflect quality control over the production process and serve interregional connectivity.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This study presents new information and interpretation of pot marks applied specifically on “Anatolian Metallic Ware” that are dated to the 3rd millennium BC, and distributed in the southern Konya Plain and the southwestern region of Cappadocia.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:While many specialists have studied this ware group, also referred to as “Darboğaz” vessels, detailed studies have not been conducted on the pot marks themselves.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Taking into account the general characteristics of the Anatolian EBA and the production techniques of Anatolian Metallic Ware, we discuss whether the pot marks reflect quality control over the production process and serve interregional connectivity.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Southern Central Anatolia · Early Bronze Age · pot marks

Abstract

This study presents new information and interpretation of pot marks applied specifically on “Anatolian Metallic Ware” that are dated to the 3rd millennium BC, and distributed in the southern Konya Plain and the southwestern region of Cappadocia. While many specialists have studied this ware group, also referred to as “Darboğaz” vessels, detailed studies have not been conducted on the pot marks themselves. The finds from the Göltepe excavations, when combined with other research data and ethnographic/ethnoarchaeological records, have helped to classify and interpret this signage. According to our preliminary results, there is no relationship between the pot marks and vessel type, sub-ware group, or ownership. Taking into account the general characteristics of the Anatolian EBA and the production techniques of Anatolian Metallic Ware, we discuss whether the pot marks reflect quality control over the production process and serve interregional connectivity.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

HACAR, A., YENER, K. A. (2020). Anatolian Pot Marks in the 3rd Millennium BC: Signage, Early State Formation, and Organization of Production. ADALYA, Sayı: 23, 25–58. https://ajindex.com/articles/132634

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (10)

  1. Åström, P. 1966. Excavations at Kalopsidha and Ayios Iakovos in Cyprus. SIMA 2. Lund: Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology. Åström, P. 1969. “Pot Marks of the Late Bronze Age from Cyprus.” OpAth 9:151-59.
  2. Bachhuber, C. 2015. Citadel and Cemetery in Early Bronze Age Anatolia. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 13. Sheffield: Equinox. Bailey, A.S. 1996. “The Potters’ Marks of Phylakopi.” Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh. Bittel, K. 1942. Kleinasiatische Studien. IstMitt 5. Istanbul: Archäologisches Institut des deutschen Reiches. Bikaki, A.H. 1984. Ayia Irini: The Potters’ Marks. Keos IV. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Blackman, M.J., G.J. Stein, and P.B. Vandiver. 1993. “The Standardization Hypothesis and Ceramic Mass Production: Technological, Compositional and Metric Indexes of Craft Specialization at Tell Leilan, Syria.” AmerAnt 58:60-80.
  3. Blegen, C.W., J.L. Caskey, M. Rawson, and J. Sperling. 1950. Troy. Vol. 1, General Introduction: The First and Second Settlements. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  4. Clark, J.E., and W. Parry. 1990. “Craft Specialization and Cultural Complexity.” Research in Economic Anthropology 12:289-346.
  5. Costin, C.L. 1991. “Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3:1-56.
  6. Costin, C.L. 2000. “The Use of Ethnoarchaeology for the Archaeological Study of Ceramic Production.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7:377-403.
  7. Costin, C.L., and M.B. Hagstrum. 1995. “Standardization, Labor Investment, Skill, and the Organization of Ceramic Production in Late Prehispanic Highland Peru.” AmerAnt 60.4:619-39.
  8. Çilingiroğlu, Ç. 2009. “Of Stamps, Loom Weights and Spindle Whorls: Contextual Evidence on the Function(s) of Neolithic Stamps from Ulucak, İzmir, Turkey.” JMA 22.1:3-27.
  9. De Sena, E.C., and E.S. Friedman. 1997. “An Investigation of the Sources of Bronze Age Pottery from Göltepe and Kestel, Turkey by Neutron Activation.” Material Issues in Art and Archaeology 5.462:239-46.
  10. Edgar, C.C. 1904. “Signifiance of the Marks.” In Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos, Conducted by the British School at Athens, described by T.D. Atkinson, R.C. Bosanquet, C.C. Edgar, A.J. Evans, D.G. Hogarth, D. Mackenzie, C. Smith, and F.B. Welch, 181-85. The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies Suppl. 4. London: Published by the Council, and sold on their behalf by Macmillan. Efe, T. 1998. “New Concepts on Tarsus Troy Relations at the Beginn